Forrest was no "Lost Cause" zealot in later life

Sagebrush

Corporal
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
396
Location
Morristown, TN
I suggest if every southerner you meet demeans you, then you need to look inward for the cause. PS, I am a member of both the SCVand MOS&B and I will catagorically state that your comments vis a vis these organizations is untrue. Now, like other groups, there are extremists in the camps, but the vast majority of the men I have met and dealt with are not extremist.
I didn't say that they were demeaning me, personally, just anything to do with Lincoln, the Union, etc. I don't have to look inward for the cause since as I originally stated, these remarks and attitudes were totally unprovoked. These folks just didn't think twice about speaking in such derrogatory terms since they have been doing it unchecked for years. I must tell you that my statements are true, with many ex-SCV members in support. Now, I have a few friends in the SCV and not all share such an extreme view, but the influence is intense and perpetual, and like slowly boiling a frog, you're cooked before you know it! Within this context, it's known as indoctrination.
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Sagebrush

Corporal
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
396
Location
Morristown, TN
I would add that that power mad hypocrite A. Lincoln had an inordinate amount to with those 620,000 deaths as well.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements."

Abraham Lincoln January 12 1848
I believe it was the Confederates who fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, and after they had unlawfully taken over US forts in the South in the preceeding weeks and months, also referred to as US property. In other words, Lincoln exercised great restraint prior to the firing upon fort Sumter.

Also, I am quite familiar with this overused and misrepresented statement purported as evidence of Lincoln's hypocricy. As is with most "Lost Cause" arguments, this single statement is cherry-picked out of context.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
179
Location
Ann Arbor
The great evil?? you must mean slavery.

The House Divides pg. 441

As late as February 1864 he (Lincoln) held that the North and the South were equally responsible for slavery, and proposed to his cabinet a $ 400,000,000 appropriate for reimbursement, provided that hostilities ceased by April 1 of that year. The cabinet unanimously voted down the proposal, and Lincoln laid it aside, temporarily as he thought, but in reality permanently, for his assassination prevented its possible revival.

For something to be so evil, why do you suppose Lincoln would offer to help finance it??? His "cabinet" was opposed, yet didn't mind accumulating a debt of 4,200,000,000.00 (billion). The World book encyclopedia estimates total war debt and property to loss to be between 12 and 14 billion.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/04/12/Civil-War-at-150-Debt-Lessons-from-Lincoln.aspx#page1

You should check out the Time Life book Twenty Million Yankees. You can read some great excerpts, as to how Lincoln forced numerous immigrants (some of which were German) to enlist against their will, to fight his war for "freedom", and how he willfully turned a blind eye to the peddling of arms and military resources by his Cabinet Members. Perhaps the encouragement of Lincoln to have Sherman send Vermont troops to Ohio (from the Atlanta Campaign), to help stack the vote in Ohio state elections would be of interest to you? Or perhaps Lincoln threatening to fire ANY Federal employee that did not vote for him would be of interest??? I could add more, but I would like to encourage you to get the book and read it.

It must be of no shock to learn that Lincoln was willing to humiliate, degrade, imprison, and send so many Northerners to their deaths, which probably explains his "contradicting" views about life.
Debts for war is not evil nor is his plan to compensate the South for the loss of its slaves. He was in fact trying to be magnanimous with the latter and the former is something ALL governments do.

One can hardly blame Lincoln for doing what the South also did(a draft). In fact, a government can legally force someone to “fight a war”. This has been used throughout history and is legal. Again, how is this an evil?

The part about stacking the vote in Ohio--if true is sleazy as is the part about firing a federal employee for not voting him. But I doubt you and your source. Such tactics seems unlikely in a hyper-partisan environment with Copperheads lurking about looking for anything.


Your last paragraph is 100% Pure Confederate BS. Besides the blatant hypocrisy of your stance it is also grossly inaccurate. That you have to resort to lies and distortions is telling.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
179
Location
Ann Arbor
I would add that that power mad hypocrite A. Lincoln had an inordinate amount to with those 620,000 deaths as well.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements."

Abraham Lincoln January 12 1848
Well, you Confederates would know hypocrisy and power hunger. Lincoln beliefs evolved. Anyone who has studied the man knows that.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,709
Location
Laurinburg NC
I believe it was the Confederates who fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, and after they had unlawfully taken over US forts in the South in the preceeding weeks and months, also referred to as US property. In other words, Lincoln exercised great restraint prior to the firing upon fort Sumter.

Also, I am quite familiar with this overused and misrepresented statement purported as evidence of Lincoln's hypocricy. As is with most "Lost Cause" arguments, this single statement is cherry-picked out of context.
Lincoln showed great restraint by attempting to reinforce the fort amidst a volatile situation? Even the fort’s commander Major Robert Anderson feared the worse from Lincoln war like intentions.

“After an anxious night for Davis and his colleagues, Walker telegraphed to Beauregard the next morning, April 12:What was Major Anderson’s reply to the proposition contained in my dispatch of last night?”

“The anxiety was lessened a little when the mail brought a fat envelope from Governor Pickens. No longer could there be the slightest doubt that the recent notice to the governor, purported from Lincoln, veritably had come from him. Here was proof. Governor Pickens enclosed letters which Anderson had dispatched to Washington but which the Confederate authorities had seized. In one of these letters, from Anderson to his superiors in Washington, he acknowledged receipt of the communication, telling him that an expedition was on the way to Sumter.

“(It is just as well, for Anderson’s reputation in the North, that this letter did not get to Washington. In it Anderson expressed surprise and chagrin. He predicted “most disastrous results” throughout the country. He went on to say: “my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced.” So wrote the man whom Northerners soon were tohail as the first hero of the war’s first battle!)”

Source: Richard N. Current, Lincoln And The First Shot, pp. 152-153.
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,431
Location
Near Kankakee
By my count, that's the 4th time you've said exactly the same thing.
 

Ray Ball

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 6, 2012
Messages
851
Location
Western NY
Your question is valid and reasonable.

Below is a letter written by Lincoln

Dr. Theodore Canisius Springfield, May 17, 1859
Dear Sir: Your note asking, in behalf of yourself and other german citizens, whether I am for or against the constitutional provision in regard to naturalized citizens, lately adopted by Massachusetts; and whether I am for or against a fusion of the republicans, and other opposition elements, for the canvass of 1860, is received.
Massachusetts is a sovereign and independent state; and it is no privilege of mine to scold her for what she does. Still, if from what she has done, an inference is sought to be drawn as to what I would do, I may, without impropriety, speak out. I say then, that, as I understand the Massachusetts provision, I am against it's adoption in Illinois, or in any other place, where I have a right to oppose it. Understanding the spirit of our institutions to aim at the elevation of men, I am opposed to whatever tends to degrade them. I have some little notoriety for commiserating the oppressed condition of the negro; and I should be strangely inconsistent if I could favor any project for curtailing the existing rights of white men, even though born in different lands, and speaking different languages from myself.
As to the matter of fusion, I am for it, if it can be had on republican grounds; and I am not for it on any other terms. A fusion on any other terms, would be as foolish as unprincipled. It would lose the whole North, while the common enemy would still carry the whole South. The question of men is a different one. There are good patriotic men, and able statesmen, in the South whom I would cheerfully support, if they would now place themselves on republican ground. But I am against letting down the republican standard a hair's breadth.
I have written this hastily, but I believe it answers your questions substantially. Yours truly A. LINCOLN


Notice in the Letter....Lincoln recognizes Massachusetts...is INDEPENDENT and SOVEREIGN, and he states that he will not scold her for what she does....however later in the letter, he is for fusion, so long as it is on REPUBLICAN GROUNDS...Lincoln did not say Constitutional grounds...BUT he specifically states HIS POLITICAL PARTY. He later appeals to good men in the SOUTH...so long as it is in concordance with HIS POLITICAL PARTY.

In Lincoln's own writing, Statehood, Sovereignty, and Independence are all contingent upon his political Party, and every other component of Government takes a backseat to "Republican grounds"

In a nut shell the "Union" by his reasoning was the Republican Party, and that is exactly what he projected in his speeches and writings.
I respectfully disagree here. Republican is not capitalized in the text and is used as the adjective rather than as part of the noun "Republican Grounds". I believe he's talking about the parts of a republic as opposed to his party.
 

Ray Ball

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 6, 2012
Messages
851
Location
Western NY
This is why I love this forum. I'm learning lots here about Forrest. When did NBF cease his association with the KKK? Was it long before his conversion? Long before he died?
 

diane

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
20,451
Location
State of Jefferson
This is why I love this forum. I'm learning lots here about Forrest. When did NBF cease his association with the KKK? Was it long before his conversion? Long before he died?

1869 is generally figured as the year Forrest exited the klan. Interesting year. Brownlow declared martial law over the klan then was no longer governor - which was one of Forrest's main reasons for joining, Arkansas passed an anti-klan law largely because of the murder of a congressman by a klansman, Grant became president and he was a strong supporter of black rights and a strong opponent of insurrectionary outfits - not to mention a pretty good general who might (and did) take military action, the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th and 15th) were ratified, and the klan itself was becoming pretty disgusting in its activities. Forrest rightly called it 'the orneriest organization this country ever produced.' At any rate, it was getting much too hot for someone of his position, much too far away from the original goals and totally uncontrollable. Forrest came to very much denounce it although he did feel an obligation to protect, as much as possible, certain people he knew were in it - hence his dodgy congressional testimony. Some of those people were his son and remaining brothers.

His religious conversion came about 1875, only a couple years before he died. It wasn't a road to Damascus type conversion, but one that had been coming along for many years. He told a friend he was trying to be a better man and hoped he was - seemed to have gotten control of a number of things except his formidable temper. After he raised a particularly big wow, the recipient of it exclaimed, "Good gracious, General! Can you do nothing with that temper of yours?" "No," fumed Forrest. "I'm d-ned if I can!"
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,709
Location
Laurinburg NC
By my count, that's the 4th time you've said exactly the same thing.
I think it best to be consistent when replying to something repeated with little variation over and over again. By the way, I think it’s the fifth time, you said fourth time the last time.

“The anxiety was lessened a little when the mail brought a fat envelope from Governor Pickens. No longer could there be the slightest doubt that the recent notice to the governor, purported from Lincoln, veritably had come from him. Here was proof. Governor Pickens enclosed letters which Anderson had dispatched to Washington but which the Confederate authorities had seized. In one of these letters, from Anderson to his superiors in Washington, he acknowledged receipt of the communication, telling him that an expedition was on the way to Sumter.
“(It is just as well, for Anderson’s reputation in the North, that this letter did not get to Washington. In it Anderson expressed surprise and chagrin. He predicted “most disastrous results” throughout the country. He went on to say: “my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced.” So wrote the man whom Northerners soon were tohail as the first hero of the war’s first battle!)”
Source: Richard N. Current, Lincoln And The First Shot, pp. 152-153.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,709
Location
Laurinburg NC
1869 is generally figured as the year Forrest exited the klan. Interesting year. Brownlow declared martial law over the klan then was no longer governor - which was one of Forrest's main reasons for joining, Arkansas passed an anti-klan law largely because of the murder of a congressman by a klansman, Grant became president and he was a strong supporter of black rights and a strong opponent of insurrectionary outfits - not to mention a pretty good general who might (and did) take military action, the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th and 15th) were ratified, and the klan itself was becoming pretty disgusting in its activities. Forrest rightly called it 'the orneriest organization this country ever produced.' At any rate, it was getting much too hot for someone of his position, much too far away from the original goals and totally uncontrollable. Forrest came to very much denounce it although he did feel an obligation to protect, as much as possible, certain people he knew were in it - hence his dodgy congressional testimony. Some of those people were his son and remaining brothers.

His religious conversion came about 1875, only a couple years before he died. It wasn't a road to Damascus type conversion, but one that had been coming along for many years. He told a friend he was trying to be a better man and hoped he was - seemed to have gotten control of a number of things except his formidable temper. After he raised a particularly big wow, the recipient of it exclaimed, "Good gracious, General! Can you do nothing with that temper of yours?" "No," fumed Forrest. "I'm d-ned if I can!"
1869 is generally figured as the year Forrest exited the klan. Interesting year. Brownlow declared martial law over the klan then was no longer governor - which was one of Forrest's main reasons for joining, Arkansas passed an anti-klan law largely because of the murder of a congressman by a klansman, Grant became president and he was a strong supporter of black rights and a strong opponent of insurrectionary outfits - not to mention a pretty good general who might (and did) take military action, the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th and 15th) were ratified, and the klan itself was becoming pretty disgusting in its activities. Forrest rightly called it 'the orneriest organization this country ever produced.' At any rate, it was getting much too hot for someone of his position, much too far away from the original goals and totally uncontrollable. Forrest came to very much denounce it although he did feel an obligation to protect, as much as possible, certain people he knew were in it - hence his dodgy congressional testimony. Some of those people were his son and remaining brothers.

His religious conversion came about 1875, only a couple years before he died. It wasn't a road to Damascus type conversion, but one that had been coming along for many years. He told a friend he was trying to be a better man and hoped he was - seemed to have gotten control of a number of things except his formidable temper. After he raised a particularly big wow, the recipient of it exclaimed, "Good gracious, General! Can you do nothing with that temper of yours?" "No," fumed Forrest. "I'm d-ned if I can!"
During Reconstruction Grant’s actual action, beyond the threat, was to reinstate favoured carpetbagger or scalawag politician ousted by a rival. Grant refusal to back North Carolina’s scalawag Governor William Holden in the aftermath of the so-called Kirk-Holden War of 1870 was a notable exception. George Kirk’s excesses in trying to subdue the Klan were becoming headlines in Northern Democratic newspapers and Grant felt the pressure not to support Holden. The controversy arose after the assassination of a white state senator and a black sheriff who were encouraging the black followers of the Union League to burn out whites, which in turn resulted in reprisals by the Klan, and other whites. Without Grant’s protection, Holden was impeached and removed from office.

While I am able for service I intend to stand by the cause while a banner floats to tell where freedom’s sons still supports her cause.”

Major Walter Clark of the North Carolina Junior Reserve Brigade in a letter to his mother
 

diane

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
20,451
Location
State of Jefferson
During Reconstruction Grant’s actual action, beyond the threat, was to reinstate favoured carpetbagger or scalawag politician ousted by a rival. Grant refusal to back North Carolina’s scalawag Governor William Holden in the aftermath of the so-called Kirk-Holden War of 1870 was a notable exception. George Kirk’s excesses in trying to subdue the Klan were becoming headlines in Northern Democratic newspapers and Grant felt the pressure not to support Holden. The controversy arose after the assassination of a white state senator and a black sheriff who were encouraging the black followers of the Union League to burn out whites, which in turn resulted in reprisals by the Klan, and other whites. Without Grant’s protection, Holden was impeached and removed from office.

While I am able for service I intend to stand by the cause while a banner floats to tell where freedom’s sons still supports her cause.”

Major Walter Clark of the North Carolina Junior Reserve Brigade in a letter to his mother
You've noted something not often noted when talk turns to Reconstruction and the aftermath of the war, and that was the anarchy that reigned in many areas. Slavery was the base of Southern society at that time and its collapse - especially in such short time - brought fear, anger, and everything else into play. The infrastructure of social order and law had collapsed as well. Sometimes I can relate to that with our Ghost Dance - within a few short years everything you know is gone and changed forever. The Indians desperately believed the dead warriors would rise, the dead buffalo would return and the white man would be driven away. The defeated Confederates had a lot of the same desperate reaction. It doesn't excuse, it just explains.

Grant, to my mind, was so tired of war and violence that he actually pulled his punches with what needed to be done with these insurrectionary groups. He believed the Southerners would take care of the problem and when he did intervene it wasn't strong enough, nor was he able to bring people together enough. Probably the South should have been occupied longer than it was, but Grant didn't think it right. He ran on the platform of "Let us have peace" after all. This is where Lincoln is missed. He had that rare ability to get people to work together for a common goal despite strong differences and feelings. Johnson sure didn't have it! And, Grant had to deal with a lot of his predecessor's mistakes.
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,431
Location
Near Kankakee
Seems Forrest is no longer of interest. If that's the case, let's let this thread slip quietly into the archives.
 

Lee

Colonel
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
2,440
Seems Forrest is no longer of interest. If that's the case, let's let this thread slip quietly into the archives.
I find NBF very interesting and I will open and read any thread that features his name. My interest in the ACW would have diminished long ago if it was limited to purely military actions. I lust for more insight to the personalities of those who lived at the time especially the major players. Such as where were they raised and what was thier family like? Where they people of faith and what level of education did they possess?

Who and what in thier lives inspired or motivated them? If they survived the war what did they do in thier post war lives? I have the same passion for major players from both north and south. How did Lincoln and Davis process thought and take decisions? How about Grant and Lee? It seems all threads morph or go off topic I liken this to waterways or forks in a river seeing this as mainly natural as in just part of human nature.

I appreciate the efforts of the Mods to maintain the depth of the primary shipping channel and to install aids to navigation but in the end the waterway driven by Mother Nature will decide its course or if drought will take it away. All in all this is a magnificent site that holds tons of information. One thread or another drifting away or evaporating will be replaced by another and the flow of information will continue.
 

diane

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
20,451
Location
State of Jefferson
Imho, my post wasn't drifting off topic since the topic is really Lost Cause zealotry. Discussing what happened after the war to make decent men like Forrest or other major wartime figures do what they did is pertinent to the topic. After all, S D Lee made his statement to the SCV and all that - why he felt that injunction was necessary is relevant, don't you think? :smile:
 


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top